MMM Inconsistency?

[p0930]

I note my post relating to a certain trailer builder has been removed by MMM for "legal reasons". It seems a little inconsistent considering the ongoing battle with Fiat over the judder issues.

By contrast to my trailer builder, Fiat have treated me with utmost courtesey and only one phone call to them has resulted in the full modification been carried out on my van to my entire satisfaction.

I do consider it a bit perverse that MMM are unwilling to deal with what is clearly bad business in respect of a trader operating at one of their shows

and who as a matter of fact is subject to County Court Judgements against him. but are happy to print a deluge of "unsubstatiated" (their word,not mine) in respect of Fiat.

I thi nk now I will explore the possibility of some degree of culpibility in respect of MMM in allowing this man to operate within their structure.

I will also reconsider my subscription and attendance at further shows.

Perhaps others will agree?

[spospe]

Censorship of this forum is quite common. It would be more acceptable if those doing the cutting left a message saying what they had done and why, rather than threads just disappearing into thin air.

[Mike88]

There are probably in excess of 5000 posts on various forums about the Fiat judder issue. One of the problems is that Fiat are not being consistent. Some are treated well others badly. Some seem to be getting the full fix; others have to fight for it. Some say the full fix does not work!Fiat deny there is a problem with 3 litre vehicles but some of their customers say there is a problem. Some are being forced to pay for new clutches because such repairs are excluded from the warranty and others are getting them replaced free of charge. The whole thing is a mess and this forum is correct in allowing forum members the opportunity to air their views and experiences.

 

In fact forums exist to exchange views and opinions and, in respect of the Fiat issue, I have found the comments made extremely helpful. Not everybody has had the same positive experience as you.

 

Given the large number of people having problems with Fiat I do not think you are correct in saying the problems with Fiat are unsubstantiated. By the same token it could be said your "good experience" post in unsubstantiated which I'm sure its not. There is plenty of evidence to suggest not everybody has had the same treatment as you.

 

In respect of the trailer manufacturer MMM probably do not wish to be involved in anything that involves court proceedings; to my knowledge the Fiat issue does not involve any legal issues.

 

But I do agree that if posts are censored the forum administrators should explain why.

[p0930]

I note you comments. The term "unsubstantiated" is not mine but a direct quote from an e mail sent to me by MMM. I accept all you say but I can only speak of my own experiences. Unfortunately in removing my post no one can see the responses from other victims of the trailer builder. On the other hand Fiat responses are there for all to see. The consideration of legal action , has to my recollection, also featured in posts relating to Fiat and the thread itself been started by an MMM staff member. I do understand MMM's position but I do think they have a responsibilty to their members and to that end there must have been an edited version of my post which could have been agreed.

[Mike Roberts]

Unfortunately it is sometimes necessary for us to remove posts but this does not mean that we do not investigate them further.

 

The original poster was notified by email yesterday to say the post had been removed at the request of our legal department. Publishing laws, that include the internet, state we simply cannot run posts that suggests a forum user has been defrauded by a company as we would have no proof of this should the company concerned bring a libel claim against us.

 

Our Exhibition Department have been notified of the customer’s problems and have been in touch with him to see if they can be of any assistance. Obviously it is regrettable if a trader that we have accepted in good faith fails to deliver to the level of their customers’ expectations and this matter will be investigated.

 

Mike Roberts, Online Editor

 

[p0930]

I appreciate any assistance that can be offered by MMM and look forward to their contact.

[p0930]

Can I just set the record straight in respect of Andy Stothert. He is not a member of MMM staff as suggested by me and his action re the Fiat issue is appreciated.

[fjmike]

We have all got used to the fact that MMM delete posts when the subject matter might effect the MMM bank balance but I would have thought that in this case a simple disclaimer by Mike Roberts on the original post would have covered their backsides from a legal prospective. The implications could be now that some poor sucker will go through the same senario as p0930, which may have been avoided if they or a friend had read the original post.

[BGD]

Credit to Mike Roberts for his explanation above.

 

I for one can appreciate the difficulty of balancing a reasonable degree of free speech here, against the potential liability to Warners arising from what posters publish here, for free, about other Companies or individuals.

 

The risk of a libel claim always sounds so vague, and perhaps unreal, as to not worry most people.

 

But if you are or have been responsible for the legal good governence of a large Company as a Director of that Company, you will know mush more of the potentially massive costs to your business of such a legal claim.

[BGD]

fjmike - 2009-09-03 8:15 PM

 

We have all got used to the fact that MMM delete posts when the subject matter might effect the MMM bank balance but I would have thought that in this case a simple disclaimer by Mike Roberts on the original post would have covered their backsides from a legal prospective. The implications could be now that some poor sucker will go through the same senario as p0930, which may have been avoided if they or a friend had read the original post.

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you'd been on the receiving end of what you considered to be a libelous statement about you), a disclaimer by the publisher of that (alledgedly) libelous statement, whilst deliberately allowing the libelous statement to remaim "in the public domain" does nothing to shield the publisher form being "joined" in any civil court action by the aggreived party.

 

What's more, the aggrieved party and their lawyers will be extremely keen to "join" such a publisher in their action for damages, as the principle of "deep pockets" usually applies.....courts will generally award much higher damages against those who they think can pay more (so that the level of "hurt" that they suffer is proportional to their ability to pay for allowing the libelous statements to continue to damage the applicant.

 

Maybe fair. Maybe not.

But it's a very real risk to any individual and business.

The risk of being sued is remote.

But the potential costs, if you ever are successfully sued, are utterly astronomical and ruinous.

Just having to pay the court costs and both sides total legal fees leading up to and including (say) a two day High Court case, as loser, will easily cost you personally a quarter of a million pounds; and that's before you have to also pay whatever damages were awarded by the Judge.

 

It really is worth thinking somewhat carefully about the possible legal consequences of what you write in ANY public forum, including any internet forums....as exactly the same law applies in the UK to those as to any other type of "public domain". And internet forums are a new arena of very rich pickings for libel lawyers.

[BGD]

With apologies for the slight error in the above post (before I'm jumped on).....yes, I did say the UK (which means both of the countries of England and Scotland, plus the province of Northern Ireland, and the principality of England known as Wales), but yes, I do know that the libel law process is slightly different under Scottish civil law.